hazelbark wrote:What would people say to a tournament where you lose Army points say equal to double the number of points you scored so far.

Double might be too much but you get the idea.

The idea is the stronger players will have a tougher go as the event presses on.

I'm not sure I follow.

You have an 800AP comp. I win the first game 25:0, so in my second game I play with 750 points? Is that what you mean?

It wouldn't work in Australia. We're having a hard enough time of it getting 3 people to play in a comp (exaggeration) let alone doing something to alienate those three. It would be interesting twist for a strong comp country though where you get hundreds turning out and can afford to alienate some.

Sounds like a list checkers nightmare. Each army would have to be reconfigured after each round. Depending on your army configuration you could be severely penalized if you had to keep all BGs legal, or were you proposing shaving single bases from BGs to cover the point loss?

First I don't care about the list checker. Allow the players to deduct the points any way they awnt even differently from round to round and leaving odd bases (not single bases)

I precede from the following assumptions:
1) There is an attendence and interest problem in our events. Depending on where you are and what you are doing it is a problem of different degrees.
2) There are more people following away in the lower end of the standings than the higher end.
3) A broad problem with gamers is they don't like to get repeatedly stomped by "tournament tigers". Some will keep playing, but there are clearly a pool that will fall away.
4) The 800 4x6 straight jacket is killing the game just as 400 killed DBM. We need variety.

Now I may not want this in a premier comp that is supposed to determine the champion of this that or the other. But as short event or a one day event could be worth the wrinkle.

If you want historical justification the "winner" in a campaign often pushed beyond their easy re-supply point.

We need steps to re-invigorate interest. This may not be one. But we need more experimentation and createive thinking.

ravenflight wrote:
It wouldn't work in Australia. We're having a hard enough time of it getting 3 people to play in a comp (exaggeration) let alone doing something to alienate those three. It would be interesting twist for a strong comp country though where you get hundreds turning out and can afford to alienate some.

Well the question I would ask is are the 3 part of the problem? In the US we have regions where the "tiger" creates the attendence problem. To remove the issue form current rules, time and players. There were a tone of people who would turn up to play the DBM non-NICT event when the NICT was going on simultaneously. The NICT was where you played if you'd ever had a 1st or 2nd in a comp. All others played in the Non-NICT. Lots would turn out for the non-NICT for a variety of reasons: more social, less stress, but all not wanting to be the bashed bunny.

Now it is a chicken and egg problem. Because you tamper with the current loyalist pool of players. But I would experiment with ways to attract the non-loyalists. This may not be it.

1) Interest and attendance has fallen off but I don't see this as the fix. Still seems like an over complication.
2) In the GCC, both beginners and sharks have left the game. The points on the table have by and large not been the cause of it IHO.
3). Initial matchups play a big role in this. More thought should be used when making the initial matchups. Again just my humble opinion.
4). The alleged 4x6 800 point straight jacket is BS. If you want something different, then run it.

The issues w FOG are way beyond anything that a complicated game by game point variation might fix. There were a lot of lists that never saw the light of day, even more list design issues and promised ( or implied if you prefer) add ons that never materialized in version 1 that soured several that I know personally. We will not even go into the snafu that was the development and publication that is V2.

V2 addressed the alleged issue of game length and removed the "over-maneuverability" of the game. IMHO more armies were hamstrung by the changes than were fixed.

All we have run in the GCC since the start of this season have been non 6x4 tournaments. 600 on 5x3 at Pelicon III as well as 700 on 5x3 at Dan's Dog Fight. At both, we had more new players than sharks and everyone had a good time. HUBCON will be 800 on 5x3 in September.

In FoGR in the UK we have just run a highly successful series (5) of one day events that have consistently been attended by 24+ players.

I think the winning formula has been:-

1) very tightly themed events with only a limited number of historical opponents using little gamed armies.
2) pre-set terrain based on the types available to the armies being played. Tables are then randomly allocated.
3) the above allows you to get down to the fighting straight away so games have only been 2hrs 40 mins (800pts on a 6x4) giving 3 games in a day.

These events have been spread around the South of England and being only one day have attracted many new players due to the localness, only one day (keeps SWMBO happy!) and the fun of 3 friendly competitive games!

Martin van Tol at the Central London club has also run a very successful FoGR competition based around the ECW where for the 18 entrants there were 18 different list options . Players were seeded according to ability and experience so the least able got to choose first and the top seeded players ended up with what was left. Games were on 5x3 tables at 650pts. Playing an army with 6 poor compulsory units out of 650 pts really levels the playing field! Again stopped the experienced players going for tourney tiger armies and had lots of historically matched armies.

I also think the 800pt Open list 6x4 format has been a contributing factor to declining support for FoG AM as it has become the default standard for competitive games. Some folks have simply become bored with it and some fed up with always being thumped by the tournament tigers min/max armies simply outclassing the 'for fun' armies.

A number of us have organised different formats which have been well received - a change is as good as a rest. e.g. 900 pts 6x4, 700 pts on 5x3.5, starter armies on 5x3.5, pre-set or limited terrain, shorter timeframes so that more games can be played over a shorter period, paired armies with players cycling round the tables ('swap a crate'). Things like average Joe seem to also level the min/max playing field. While one would expect good generals to still float to the top these other formats often result in new faces doing well rather than the same old faces on the podium. This has the effect of encouraging continued participation amongst a wider group.

The ELO league table has also been a constraining factor for some, so that now it is often asked whether a particular event will be ELO or not. The idea being that if an event is not ELO god players are likely to bring more 'adventurous' armies without fear of losing ELO points if their non min/max army doesn't work out (and their generalship doesn't, in fact, make up for it).

The growing popularity of SAGA also suggests people are looking to get the fun back into wargaming through more historical-style match-ups and shorter game timespans. My recollection is that Slitherine wanted people to play more historical match-up type games with FoG AM rather than wide open formats - and hence the army books.

In the end it comes down to individual event organisers putting on an interesting format that they feel has a nucleus of support and keeps people interested because they have a reasonable chance of 'winning' in a fun pastime (or at least not always getting thrashed).

Some of these points were the object of a recent debate in our local group. Declining numbers of players, long dull games, full weekends, electronic gaming, short attention spans and so on.

At the same time I came across some feeds from an event called ETC which took place in Serbia during August. Three game systems were played: Warhammer both fantasy and 40K and Flames of War. I don´t know the number of players present, but should be 400+, in 84 teams from 40 countries…!

Now, judging from that, it seems that there are a lot of people from a lot of places… wargaming! But where are the “historicals” people (with the obvious exception of FOW)?
If they exist the numbers must be very small.

So, what have this systems that we don’t?
What can be done to keep current gamers from leaving? And more importantly, what can be done to get the next generation of players?

We all know that nowadays the younger gamers like electronic games, play fantasy/SyFy with visually appealing scenery and large models and of course have no patience at all – things must be served ready.

For these I think a recipe of ready-to-play entry packs might ease the task. Pre-painted figures (even in a basic level) for a small army, say in the 400pts range, to allow immediate and fast games. At the same time keeping costs relatively low.
Note that all this might just be the difference to prompt a start in a new/second game system.

This sort of logic works for the above game systems. So, what’s keeping from trying it in ancients/FOG?

Then to help keep things running, lighter one day competitions (with prizes).
Those could be run either on small formats (i.e. 400pts) or inventing some “breakthrough” on the 650-800pts games.
On this later subject we have just started tests using the FOW scenario model adapted to FOG and it looks very promising with 2 hours being enough for 650pts. We are using encounter battle, fighting withdrawal and river crossing (and there is a lot more to choose from the Grant books). But this is just ONE idea.

Naturally, key to this would be the role of the professionals. They would have to invest, develop new products (including electronic tools!), giving them support, marketing, logistics, sponsorhips (including a flag major event possibly in league with other game systems), etc, etc.
But perhaps a potential customer base from 40+ countries might give enough profit as to be attractive?

The period must adapt and evolve. We should not expect to achieve the numbers of the fantasy systems, but steps must be taken to promote growth and interest in this period.

Would it not be easier to have a seeding system and handicaps instead of taking their troops away. The easiest way to enforce a handicap is a modified break point so good players armies break on 10% less BP or something like that. Weaker players get an increased BP.

hazelbark wrote:What would people say to a tournament where you lose Army points say equal to double the number of points you scored so far.

Double might be too much but you get the idea.

The idea is the stronger players will have a tougher go as the event presses on.

If it's intended as a tactic to try and tempt players back out again who've largely given up on FoGAM as a ruleset, I doubt it will work - none of the players I know who've dropped FoGAM are sat in the pub saying over a pint that they are playing other rulesets because they wish FoGAM was made more complicated...

A Swiss draw should also end up sorting out the "repeatedly stomped by tigers" phenomenon in any ruleset fairly quickly too, and in prior ruleset eras I doubt very much whether the tiger/noob ratio was very different either, so I also doubt that is a material issue here either.

What's needed is a way to make the individual games more interesting, increase the range of different, viable armies and cut down the number of potential mismatches due to asymetrical army choices. That can be done by changing points, table size or very clever theming, but all need careful work on the part of the organiser.

Being repeatedly stomped is always dull, but when players start to expect that they will experience some dull repetitive games even in the rounds where they aren't being stomped as well, the risk/reward ratio of entering a (more open, 800 6x4-type) competition starts to get too far out of kilter to be attractive.

madaxeman wrote:What's needed is a way to make the individual games more interesting, increase the range of different, viable armies and cut down the number of potential mismatches due to asymetrical army choices. That can be done by changing points, table size or very clever theming, but all need careful work on the part of the organiser.

I agree with this. Themes are very difficult to do and difficult to make stick without encouraging counter-programming. I am fairly convinced that the way to do this is to just lower the AP cost of the "theme troops." So in a Roman legion theme you make legionaries (and selected opponents) less expensive. You can still counter-program, but you know you will do so at a disadvantage in AP terms.

I also believe that some careful (and announced) pre-set terrain. So in our Roman theme you basically announce that there won't be any particular light horse friendly tables.

zoltan wrote:The growing popularity of SAGA also suggests people are looking to get the fun back into wargaming through more historical-style match-ups and shorter game timespans. My recollection is that Slitherine wanted people to play more historical match-up type games with FoG AM rather than wide open formats - and hence the army books.

So we have also started playing Saga. I don't necessarily think it is about historical match-ups. I am not sure Saga can be thought of as very historical and Irish fighting Pagan Rus or Byzantines isn't exactly historical...

What is different about Saga? Foot and mounted are on a much more equal footing. Warbands are smaller (50ish figures or so) which means even using the preferred 25mm scale they are much more manageable to paint. Scenarios make sense in saga and add a lot of variety - arguably the scenarios are more apt for the game than the "clash of warlords."

Most importantly IMO, Saga games are fast and generally run to a conclusion. While the game is still going on both players are "in the game" with opportunities (generally) to do things to try and win. It is fairly difficult to completely nullify the enemy army and even in baddish match-ups the risk is always there the opponent will smash you - Saga gives everyone a "punchers chance."

I think you are still missing the point. Yes cleverly designed themes might appeal to the bored die hards but that does not to bring in new blood. Cleverly designed seeding systems and sliding attrition plans don't either.

FOG armies are quite an investment in time and money. I build armies because of their history not because they will dominate their opponents. Sure I would like to win but its not why I play. Most of the new blood we've seen in the Gulf Coast have joined because they have a pet army they like the history of. Yet the cost of building a list and then discovering its terrible under the rules drives them away.

One of the earlier posts talked about a mini-FOG using 400 points. I think that has more to appeal to new players than you might think. Under v1 I played around with a FOG 300 concept for solo-campaigning. Each side uses the ally list and builds a 300 point army from that. Only one general per side (paying allied general cost), no ICs, terrain reduced to compulsory and one other piece per side (no double sized pieces), 2x2 table, deployment zone is up to 6" for all troop types and a single 40mm square for baggage. Time limit is about an hour.

Most lists have allies lists already and could spur the development of others that have been left out.

I have found myself playing once every 3 or 4 months with little gaming time now. I simply don't think I will want to sit through 3hour plus rounds in a FOG tournament with the time I do have. What time I have is now dba and lost battles for ancients and fow for competition gaming. A long game in fow is 2.5 hours, and dba and lb are less.

A&M is an old man's sport. Apart from our good friend Colin in Sarf Arf-reek-car I don't see anyone with a queue of adolescents lining up to play with A&M toy soldiers. And as the sun sets slowly in the west.....